Replies

Further, let’s pretend that the silence on all the other heresies listed means that you simply hadn’t gotten that far yet and will return to comment on them after we discuss Gnosticism.

Bait much?

The point is to show the similarities between what the Gnostics taught and what Calvinists teach. There are some differences, but the essence of the teaching is the same.

Wow. Where do I begin? This is such an egregious example of a logical fallacy I could hardly believe it when I read it.

The fallacy (that of the undistributed middle) is easily demonstrated:

All A are B
All C are B
Therefore, all A are C.

Or, to apply it to your argument:

All Calvinists believe in perseverance
All Gnostics believe in perseverance
Therefore, all Calvinists are Gnostics

Then you have the audacity to claim you are showing similarity in the essence of the teachings between the two when you COMPLETELY FAIL to acknowledge the clear essential differences in the underlying details of both. Friend, this charge of Gnosticism on the part of the Reformed is nothing short of spurious and illegitimate.

If a person is saved, it is not by means of his own conduct, but on account of his nature.

Horsecrap! While we would readily affirm it is not by means of our own conduct, it is because we rely wholly upon the person and work of Jesus to provide the rightousness we cannot provide for ourselves. The redemption and sanctification of our nature is the result of our salvation, not the cause of it.

While Gnostics and Calvinists differ in the origin of that nature, the doctrine is still the same. Gnostics say that it is due to a special spiritual nature. Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ.

That's just an outright LIE! It is the ROMAN CATHOLICS who believe in the infusion of Christ's righteousness to MAKE them actually righteous, whereas the Reformed believe in the impartation of His righteousness that they may be regarded as righteous. COME ON...just how far are you going to go in blatantly misrepresenting the Reformed doctrines in order to support this ridiculous claim of yours?

The parallels are striking. How many times have we heard the person who believes in this doctrine of “once saved, always saved” say that the child of God cannot fall from grace? How many times have we heard those who believe this doctrine say that the child of God cannot lose their spirituality? How many times have we heard them say that the child of God cannot sin in such a way so as to lose his salvation? The similarities between this form of Gnosticism and the doctrine of “Once saved, always saved” are too numerous to ignore.

Whatever. You can heap all the logical fallacies on us you want and it won't make them any more true. I typically don't go down the path of pointing out the obvious parallels I often see between Roman Catholic/Orthodox practice and naked idolatry because I'd rather to stick to the fundamental doctrines and the crucial differences that separate us rather than go for the low-hanging fruit, but with these assinine arguments you're making it sure makes it hard not to.

As I said previously, all I can do is listen to your confession and compare it to the Church Fathers’ writings. I don’t get to define heresies.

Well, you certainly are feeling free to (re)define Reformed doctrine and (re)define basic rules of logic. You seem utterly unconcerned with the details beyond whatever you can manipulate to justify your absurd claims.

<<>> The silence on the heresies other than Gnosticism was (and still appears to be) deafening. Gnosticism was, as was said, probably the most prominent heresy mentioned in the New Testament. Its name comes from the Greek word gnosis which means "knowledge", but what the Gnostics were promoting was not the true knowledge of God as taught by the Apostles, but a sort of esoteric pseudo-knowledge or mysticism derived from personal, direct spiritual experiences which they took to be Divine revelation. Some of the most prominent characteristics of this ancient heresy that so destabilized so many early Christians included the following: 1. A disdain for and impatience with the orthodox process of presenting God's propositional truth to the believer for him to understand and process with his reason, in favor of direct, intuitive insight gained by experience. The effect this had was to produce a sort of intellectual anarchy wherein the spectrum of Gnostic belief, though always having certain characteristics, was so broad as to almost defy definition, since its beliefs were determined by individual speculation. Now to be sure, receiving spiritual insight and revelation directly from the Holy Spirit is very Biblical. We need to remember that the heroes of the faith all got what they did directly from God long before there even were any holy writings. Moses and Paul for instance, received truth from God this way and what they got became what we now today call the Holy Scriptures. Abraham likewise was willing to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering based solely on a subjective experience (Gen 22). If that were you or I, we would probably have said, "I rebuke you Satan in Jesus Name!" But today we have a "more sure word of prophecy" (II Pet 1:19), the Word of God, and the Word and the Spirit agree. Therefore whatever we get by revelation must agree with the basic revelation of God as already given in the Scriptures. And it is here where the Gnostic error manifested, because for whatever reason, they would either take this principle too far or they would just come to the wrong conclusions. Whether it was out of vanity, stubbornness, a desire to be different, an honest misunderstanding or whatever, only God knows the motives lurking within the human heart. But regardless, it must be one of the great ironies of the Scriptures to read the Apostle John telling the believers that they can overcome the subversions of the Gnostics because "ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things" (I Jn 2:20), such an unction in fact that they didn't even need a man--even John himself--to teach them (2:27)! 2. A tendency to spiritualize the Scriptures, always looking for deep symbolic and allegorical meanings to everything. For the same reasons the Gnostics were given to myth and poetry more than to literal meanings and historical accounts of things. In so doing they were turning on its head the orthodox dictum of, "Be literal where possible, and allegorical when necessary" in favor of, "Be allegorical as much as possible. It sounds more impressive." What we have to understand about this factor is the paradoxical nature of so much that we find about Biblical truth. For instance, First Corinthians 2:10 speaks of "the deep things of God" that the Holy Spirit "searches out", so there is a valid concept involved here. The works of say, Kevin Connor, who has written much about the types and symbols found in the Bible is an example of the good side of this. But there is a bad side too, a kind of "deep things" that are so deep and "spiritual", no one can understand what's being talked about! The Gnostics were given to this sort of thing in such extremes or in ways that were so out of bounds as to take a good concept and turn it into a bitter poison. In fact, the Gnostics had a phrase for this--"the depths of God". But their version of such things was so perverse as to prompt Jesus in Revelation 2:24 to sarcastically refer to them as, "the depths of Satan, as they speak." The Gnostics also regularly claimed that their teachings did in fact come from the Apostles, but were secretly handed down to them because only the very spiritual could handle such deep things. I imagine they used Jesus' words to great effect here when He said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" (Jn 16:12), as well as similar sentiments (Mt 13:11; 19:11, etc.). The apostles strongly condemn the ways of these false Gnostic teachers who are "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness", who "walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness", (Jude 47,8,16; II Pet 2:10, 14, 18), etc. etc. As well, we have where Paul speaks of those who follow practices which have "the appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh (Col 2:23 NKJ). In other words, here we have another great irony, (something Paul especially loved to savor), in that although these people go to great lengths to deny their physical flesh, they're walking in a kind of "spiritual flesh", that is, a kind of spiritual pride or showboatism. The Example of John There is the ever-evolving and ever-individualistic Gnostic dogma, which much of the New Testament is directed at correcting Gnostic ideas. But it's like listening to a phone conversation. You only hear one person talking and you have to speculate or ask for more information before you can find out what the other party was saying. The writings of John for example, were much given to dealing with this error. John did not write until toward the end of the first century, by which time the Gnostic influence was tearing apart the churches of the empire. In his Gospel for instance, when he said that Jesus is "the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," (Jn 1:9), he was making a concession to the Gnostics about that last characteristic. He was stating that, in essence, there was a half truth involved here, that the Holy Spirit can bear witness to every man's human spirit to bring that Light Who is Christ Jesus into a person's heart. But the thrust of his words is that Jesus is that uncreated God; not the human soul. Likewise, the First Epistle of John is almost totally devoted to helping people deal with the seductive Gnostic error in their midst (I Jn 2:26). When John writes, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1:8), he is actually addressing that Gnostic lie that there is no sin, only ignorance. In other words, what the second "we" in the verse is referring to is not "we Christians", but "we, the human race". I don't know how many times Bible teachers have used this verse to excuse sin in Christians, but they are always hard pressed to explain then John's obvious contradiction in 3:6-9 where he says among other things, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed [i.e., the believer] remaineth in him; and he cannot sin [in good conscience, at least], because he is born of God." Then in chapter 2 verse 2 John addresses another Gnostic error. Like the Calvinists years later, Gnostics taught that Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect (i.e., those who come into this wonderful "knowledge"). But John says here that, "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." In other places, John accuses the Gnostics among them of professing much love, but in reality "hating" the believers because they are trying to seduce them away from the true faith into a pseudo knowledge of God . He calls them "murderers" for this (3:15), following in the example of Cain who brought an offering that God did not accept (3:12). Yet their apparent superior "knowledge" was causing the believers to feel very inferior and condemned (3:20). John says these Gnostics were operating under the influence of deceiving spirits (4:1), and that they denied Christ was God in the flesh, but rather an enlightened adept who learned the gnosis way and upon whom the "Christ spirit" came while He was on the cross (4:2). Gnosticism Today To be sure, the early Gnostic heresies were serious errors, serious enough to damn the soul according to the Apostles (II Pet 2:3,12,17; I Jn 2:22,23; II Jn 9, etc.). If any of these doctrines are still around today, they're found in outright cults and New Age circles. But what I am alarmed at are the tendencies of similar principles to be found within orthodox Charismatic and Pentecostal circles today. And these principles follow the sorts of patterns outlined in the first two characteristics mentioned above. from http://intotruth.org/apostasy/NewGnostics.htm

MARK: Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ.

FRUMANCHU: That's just an outright LIE! It is the ROMAN CATHOLICS who believe in the infusion of Christ's righteousness to MAKE them actually righteous, whereas the Reformed believe in the impartation of His righteousness that they may be regarded as righteous.

Mark, you've now been corrected on your slip-up several times. When one errs on the forum, it's best to come clean and admit the error. Harley (post 9,909), Frumanchu (10,027), me (post 9,921) and probably others I haven't read yet highlighted your mistake which incorrectly stated that the Reformed believe in infused righteousness.

As your own catechism states, it's YOU who believes the "infused" error.

PART THREE
SECTION ONE
CHAPTER THREE
ARTICLE 2
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification

There it is -- "infused." And further, the error is compounded by the RCC belief that salvation is conferred at baptism; same old baptismal regeneration error which says the church alone holds the keys to a man's eternal soul. Adding insult to injury, it's referred to as "deifying grace!" Again, the RCC believes we become God, rather than possessed by Him.

2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

"Infused." Wasn't it you who just said (incorrectly) "Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ." If we believed that, we would be agreeing with your catechism! But you will find that word nowhere in the Reformed vocabulary (and probably not in any of the Protestant church.)

2024 Sanctifying grace makes us "pleasing to God." Charisms, special graces of the Holy Spirit, are oriented to sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. God also acts through many actual graces, to be distinguished from habitual grace which is permanent in us.

Let's all note that's FOUR KINDS OF GRACE -- sanctifying grace, special grace, actual grace and habitual grace! Whew!

2025 We can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God.

Please note here man's merit is "due to God." It is therefore not Christ's merit that saves us; it is merit made possible by Christ. "Infused" to make us good, rather than "imputed" and therefore reckoned as good by His goodness. According to the RCC, men actually become good and that is what God judges, rather than given the goodness of Christ and being judged by HIS goodness. It really is a fascinating and very telling distinction upon which the Reformation was waged. Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone.

2026 The grace of the Holy Spirit can confer true merit on us, by virtue of our adoptive filiation, and in accordance with God's gratuitous justice. Charity is the principal source of merit in us before God.

Again, we "merit" salvation by our "charity."

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

Not only do we merit salvation, but we can actually merit it for others!

As Harley wrote in post 9,909...

The reason traditional Protestants never believed in infused righteousness is because the term "infused" is never used in scripture. Instead scripture uses the term imputed righteousness.

Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him [Abraham] for righteousness.
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Again, as evidenced on this thread over and over, if we get justification wrong, just about everything else that follows is off, misdirected away from the Creator and instead, toward the creature and his own ability.

We are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone as revealed to us in Scripture alone via the Holy Spirit alone who works in us to bring us to understanding and to produce good fruit.

It is ALL of Him; and none of us. Thank God.

Christ's righteousness is counted as ours, and therefore we are acquitted of our sins and welcomed by God who sees His Son within us, according to His gift of the Lamb slain for His flock from the foundation of the world.

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." -- 1 Corinthians 1:30-31

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21

OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT IN OURSELVES
by John Calvin

"...a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification as the acceptance with which God receives us into His favor as if we were righteous. And we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. ..."

"...clothed in the righteousness of Christ." Amen.